An Evaluation of the Visual Demands of Portable Telematics Technologies Among Young Adult Drivers
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
White Paper 2012-19 An Evaluation of the Visual Demands of Portable Telematics Technologies among Young Adult Drivers Bruce Mehler, Bryan Reimer, Jonathan Dobres December 21, 2012 Proposed visual-manual distraction guidelines for in-vehicle electronic devices (NHTSA, 2012) specify 3 criteria by which unacceptable levels of visual distraction are to be quantified using driving simulation testing. This paper reports on data obtained on a sample of 24 younger adults (20-29 years) dialing a flip-style phone with tactile buttons and a smart phone with a touch screen, entering a destination address into a portable navigation device, and, for comparison purposes, manually interacting with the vehicle radio at 3 distinct levels of complexity. It is our intent to limit this document to a presentation of the results and allow readers to consider the data in relation to the proposed distraction guidelines for in-vehicle devices and possible implications for the eventual development of guidelines for nomadic devices. No overt support or critique of the guidelines is offered by the authors in this context. It is our expectation that making these data available may be a useful contribution to the overall discussion of the proposed and future guidelines. 1. Introduction In early 2012, NHTSA issued a notice of proposed visual-manual distraction guidelines (2012) for public comment. Useful but somewhat limited background data (Ranney et al., 2011; Ranney, Baldwin, Parmer, Martin, & Mazzae, 2011) was made available for evaluation and comment on aspects of the criteria presented. Availability of data is particularly important for the ongoing discussion over the criteria selected for the various proposed thresholds to be conducted on the basis of scientific analysis. One area that appears particularly limited is the availability of eye glance testing data analyzed following the proposed criteria for Eye Glance Testing Using a Driving Simulator (EGDS). Significant attention in the NHTSA document was directed to the “classic” Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (the Alliance) and the Collision Avoidance Metrics Partnership (CAMP) Driver Workload Metrics project radio task (Angell et al., 2006; Driver Focus-Telematics Working Group, 2006) as well as to interactions with various nomadic devices such as portable GPS units and cell phones. As NHTSA moves forward with plans to finalize the visual-manual driver distraction guidelines for in-vehicle electronic devices and to offer guidance on the visual-manipulative demands of portable technologies, the availability of more data to support decisions will be critical. NHTSA’s draft guidelines pertaining to visual-manual distraction for in-vehicle electronics provide a set of clear criteria for eye glance evaluation in driving simulation. The EGDS guidance is based largely on the Alliance (2006) principles, but with lower thresholds and clearer testing criteria. For a secondary task to be considered acceptably safe (NHTSA, 2012), 85% or more of a test sample must meet these criteria. Using the NHTSA specified minimum sample size, and following the rounding up requirement, this translates into a requirement that 21 out of 24 of a sample of subjects across a specific demographic group must meet these criteria: 2 1. “the mean duration of all individual eye glances away from the forward road scene should be less than 2.0 seconds while performing the secondary task” (p. 105), and 2. “no more than 15 percent (rounded up) of the total number of eye glances away from the forward road scene should have durations of greater than 2.0 seconds while performing the secondary task” (p. 106), and 3. “the sum of the durations of each individual participant’s eye glances away from the forward road scene should be less than, or equal to, 12.0 seconds while performing the secondary task one time” (p. 108). NHTSA recommends that a broad age range of participants be considered in testing to ensure that a secondary task can be performed across “virtually the entire range of drivers without being unreasonably distracting” (p. 108). Based on each group of 24 participants, the current recommendation is that there should be 6 participants inclusive in each of the following age groupings: 18-24, 25-39, 40-54, and 55-up. This paper reports on selected results from an experiment designed to assess the extent to which the visual demands of a number of portable telematics devices, two types of phones and a portable navigation system, compare to three levels of the “classic radio task” and relate to various levels of two surrogate visual tasks. The data was collected in 2011 as part of the first of two studies. (It is anticipated that results from the second study, which examined the impacts of selected tasks across three age groups, will be released once final data analysis is complete.) The present report has been developed to provide a synopsis of key variables as they related to the pending guidelines. Results are computed using basic statistical models and the proposed metrics for Eye Glance Testing Using a Driving Simulator (EGDS). 2. Methods 2.1 Participants Recruitment methods and experimental content were approved by MIT’s institutional review board. The sample was intentionally drawn from a younger age group (20-29 years) likely to have a high proportion of individuals with extensive experience using in-vehicle technologies. It is relevant to note that the recruitment sample for this study straddled the first two NHTSA recommended age groups, but did not include older drivers. Participants were required to be active, experienced drivers, defined as driving 3 or more times a week and having held a valid driver’s license for 3+ years. Additionally, they needed to demonstrate a safe operating history by reporting a driving record free of accidents for the past year. Eye glasses were set as an exclusion criterion due to the use of eye tracking metrics as a primary dependent variable. Participants were drawn from community volunteers in the greater Boston area who responded to online, print advertisements, or referrals. Compensation of $60 was provided. 2.2 Apparatus The study was conducted in a driving simulator consisting of a fixed base, full cab Volkswagen 2001 New Beetle situated in front of an 8’ by 6’ (2.44m by 1.83m) projection screen positioned 76” (1.93m) in front of the mid-point of the windshield. This provided approximately a 40 degree view of the virtual world at a resolution of 1024 x 768 pixels. Graphical updates were generated at a minimum frame rate of 20 Hz by STISIM Drive version 2.08.02 (Systems Technology, Inc., Hawthorne, CA) based upon a driver’s interaction with the steering wheel, brake and accelerator. Force feedback was provided through the steering wheel and auditory feedback consisting of engine noise, cornering sounds, and brake noise was played through the vehicle’s sound system. Audio tasks and instructions were also provided through the vehicle sound system. Driving performance data were captured at 10 Hz. A FaceLAB® 5.0 eye tracking system (Seeing Machines, Canberra, Australia) recorded data at up to 60 Hz. Two video cameras, one mounted in front and one behind and to the side of the driver, captured images of the participant’s face and hands to monitor general behavior and interaction with the cell phones. Validation work has established high correspondence between this simulator configuration and on-road behavior in the allocation of visual attention in interactions with visual manipulative human machine interfaces (HMIs) (Wang et al., 2010) and cognitive demands (Reimer & Mehler, 2011). Massachusetts Institute of Technology AgeLab > New England University Transportation Center 77 Massachusetts Ave, E40-279, Cambridge, MA 02139 > Phone: 617.253.0753 > agelab.mit.edu > utc.mit.edu 3 The simulation scenario consisted of a divided highway with two lanes in each direction plus a 2 foot (0.61 m) shoulder on each side of the roadway. Lane width was 15 feet (3.62 m) and posted speed limit was 65 mph (104.6 km/h). Typical traffic events on the virtual highway included passing vehicles, lane changes, and slow downs. The average traffic density in the virtual scenario was set at 23 vehicles/mile (14.3/km). Average traffic speed for vehicles in the left lane was set equal to the posted speed limit of 65 mph (104.6 km/h) and 5 mph slower (96.5 km/h) for the right lane. A radio (Mitsubishi MR587248) meeting the guidelines established by the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (2006) for the radio reference task was obtained and mounted in place of the original vehicle radio. (The unit was flush mounted and there was no reason for a participant to assume that is was anything other than the original unit supplied with the vehicle.) Functional controls included a rotational control knob for power and volume control, rotational control for station tuning, seek up and down buttons, AM/FM toggle, CD selection, 6 preset push-buttons, and scan, RDM, and eject buttons for the CD interface. Character size for the band display (AM/FM1/FM2) averaged 5mm tall by 3 mm wide and numbers for station display (92.9) averaged 8 mm tall by 5 mm wide. A Garmin nüvi 1490LMT 5-inch (12.7 cm) backlit TFT color touchscreen display with 480x272 WQVGA pixel resolution was employed as a portable navigation device. The physical dimensions of the unit were 5.4 x 3.4 x 0.6 inches (13.97 x 8.89 cm). The GPS unit was mounted on top a touch screen display used for presenting surrogate tasks (see Figure 1). This placed the GPS unit at approximately the height that might be typical of a window mounting option. Two types of phone interfaces were tested: a flip-style phone with tactile buttons that the participant had to physically depress to engage (Samsung Model SCH-A670) and a smart phone with a touch screen representation of the same keyboard layout (original Apple iPhone).